Navigation | ||
My WhyNot? | ||
Icon Key | ||||||||||||
The community's level of support for this idea is...
| ||||||||||||
Low Calorie Premium Chocolate | |||||||||||||||||
We have light Coke and other light soft drinks. Why can we not have low calorie, high quality chocolate widely available? Why not "Toblerone Light" or "Ghirardelli Light"? It can't be that tough to produce - using skimmed milk for a start would probably half the calories in a typical bar. My girlfriend is a chocoholic but is forever stressing about her weight - if some company would start producing and widely distributing this product, my life would be a lot simpler! Brian
Brian Dineen, Feb 27 2004
What do you think of this idea or comment?
| |||||||||||||||||
I agree
No opinion
I disagreeUsers who liked this idea also liked: | |||||
| |||||
Other ideas in category (Desserts): | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Add your comment
The following is not an endorsement. I have no vested interest in the following product, other than having purchased some recently.
www.amberlynchocolates.com
"World's Finest Belgium Chocolate"
"Sugar Free / Low Carbs"
Uses Maltitol for a sweetner / sugar substitute.
Just bought a sample box, and they are pretty good. No skim milk.
The problem is, low-calorie of other healthy forms of chocolate hardly taste like chocolate. Have you ever had SlimFast or a chocolate protein bar? Sometimes they tatse okay, but rarely do they actually taste like chocolate.
Why not just eat less of the real stuff?
I believe Brian was looking for premium chocolate, low calorie, not PowerBars.
As such, sugar is a sweetner, but does not contribute to the "feel" of chocolate. Many sweetners, aspartame for example, have a bitter aftertaste. Maltitol seems to be better. So, lower calories, and minimal discernible difference in texture.
Using skim milk would reduce calories, but also fat content. Fat, for chocolate, contributes to the feel of chocolate, and therefore, the above premium chocolate does not skimp on skim milk. :-)
So, one can have premium chocolate, and somewhat lower calories. Without going to a protein bar concept.
The problem with comparing "low calorie" chocolate to "meal replacement" shakes or bars is that the bars have things specifically put into them that are intended to be good for you. Things like protein (as said) and vitamins will alter the taste and texture of the chocolate. While it is the intent to create something that is better for you than tastes better, the end product usually tastes like vitamins. Things like iron, calcium, copper are a few additives that I know I can taste in small amounts.
As for sugar replacement, sucralose is quite versatile as an artificial sweetner. if i do recall right, a sugar molecule is chlorinated in a way that is extremely stable, but still retains sweetness. Anyways, its these bonds that hold out to high temperatures (hundreds of degrees celcius) and give sucralose the ability to be baked with. Besides that, there is also the fact that it has a more pleasant taste.. more of a sweet aftertaste, with a lot less bitter.
I AM WORRIED ABOUT AVOIDING THE UNHIGINIC REFILLING OF SOFTDRINKS IN GLASS BOTTLES IN INDIA I HAVE A SOLUTION STACK THE BOTTLES UPSIDE DOWN ALSO DESIGN THE CRATES SUITABLE FOR ACCOMODATING THE BOTTLE UPSIDE DOWN